ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal held that the assessee made a procedural error by filing under the wrong sub-clause for its application under Section 80G(5). The CIT wrongly denied registration based on this technicality. The Tribunal directed the CIT to grant approval to the assessee as an existing institution.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the AO and CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's submissions. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas, 2024' scheme. The Revenue did not object to this withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the grounds urged by the assessee in the Cross Objection should have been filed as a separate appeal. Therefore, the Cross Objection was dismissed, and the Revenue's appeal was also dismissed due to lack of tax effect.

The Tribunal noted that the CPC had granted relief through a rectification order, but the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify if the bonus payments were made before the due date under Section 43B.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to examine the documents and affidavits in the correct perspective and the CIT(A) wrongly upheld the AO's order. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the AO for re-examination after evaluating the additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was passed without conforming to the binding directions of the DRP, violating Section 144C(10). Following jurisdictional High Court precedents, the Tribunal found this to be a procedural default that required rectification.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte due to non-compliance and the CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal ex-parte without giving findings on merit. Considering principles of natural justice, the case was remanded back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the disallowance as the assessee had sufficient surplus funds to make the advances. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs Reliance Industries.

The Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT(A) NFAC. The Tribunal noted that the issue of notice under Section 148 by the AO was not justified because the assessee had already filed a return of income before the notice was issued. The AO had initiated proceedings assuming the assessee was a non-filer and had not disclosed property purchases. However, the assessee provided evidence to the CIT(A) demonstrating that the return was filed prior to the Section 148 notice, and that the property details, its purchase, and the deduction of TDS were already on record with the AO. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reasoning to be clear and categorical and saw no reason to interfere. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed an order based on incorrect facts and in a negligent manner. The Tribunal decided to set aside the order and remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of substantial justice and decided to remit the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free surplus funds (Rs. 695.56 Cr) compared to the total investment in assets and work-in-progress (Rs. 97.39 Cr). Therefore, the use of interest-bearing funds could be covered by the surplus interest-free funds, and no disallowance was warranted.

The provided text is an excerpt and does not contain the Tribunal's decision or reasoning. Therefore, it is not possible to state what the Tribunal decided, the reasoning that led to it, the ratio, or the operative directions. The specific findings on the issues raised, the principles established, and any undecided issues are not recorded in this portion of the judgment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For AY 2013-14 & 2014-15, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate an additional ground regarding limitation. For AY 2016-17, the appeals were dismissed following the Supreme Court's decision in SBI vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue lacked sufficient corroborative evidence to support the addition. The retrieved information from a third party's laptop was considered doubtful without direct evidence, and the assessee was not provided with the material or an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For AY 2013-14 & 2014-15, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate an additional ground regarding limitation. For AY 2016-17, the appeals were dismissed following the Supreme Court's decision in SBI vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal first addressed the issue of jurisdiction. It held that the appeals were maintainable as they were filed against the orders of the CIT(A) which had confirmed the findings of the AO. The Tribunal clarified that it has the power to hear appeals against orders passed by the CIT(A) under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal found that the payments made by the State Bank of India to its employees towards travel and composite allowances were not in the nature of salary income. The Tribunal reasoned that these allowances were intended to reimburse employees for expenses incurred in performing their duties for the employer. Since these were reimbursements of expenditure and not perquisites or benefits provided to employees, they did not constitute taxable income. Therefore, the SBI was not obligated to deduct TDS on these amounts under Section 192 of the Act. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, directing the deletion of the demands raised under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For AY 2013-14 & 2014-15, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate an additional ground regarding limitation. For AY 2016-17, the appeals were dismissed following the Supreme Court's decision in SBI vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For AY 2013-14 & 2014-15, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate an additional ground regarding limitation. For AY 2016-17, the appeals were dismissed following the Supreme Court's decision in SBI vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For AY 2013-14 & 2014-15, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate an additional ground regarding limitation. For AY 2016-17, the appeals were dismissed following the Supreme Court's decision in SBI vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For AY 2013-14 & 2014-15, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate an additional ground regarding limitation. For AY 2016-17, the appeals were dismissed following the Supreme Court's decision in SBI vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263. The Tribunal observed that the PCIT had not recorded any finding as to how the assessment order was erroneous. It was incumbent upon the PCIT to first demonstrate why the assessee's reply was incorrect and where the error lay in the assessment order, rather than remanding the issue to the AO to find the error. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in ITO Vs D.G. Housing Projects Ltd., which states that the Commissioner must conduct an enquiry and record findings to establish that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and cannot simply direct the AO to re-examine the issue. The Tribunal found that the PCIT had failed to decide how the order was erroneous and had itself committed an error by not properly exercising jurisdiction under Section 263. Therefore, the impugned order of the PCIT was quashed. The assessment order was not set aside on merits, but the PCIT's order invoking Section 263 was found unsustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For AY 2013-14 & 2014-15, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate an additional ground regarding limitation. For AY 2016-17, the appeals were dismissed following the Supreme Court's decision in SBI vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For AY 2013-14 & 2014-15, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate an additional ground regarding limitation. For AY 2016-17, the appeals were dismissed following the Supreme Court's decision in SBI vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For AY 2013-14 & 2014-15, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate an additional ground regarding limitation. For AY 2016-17, the appeals were dismissed following the Supreme Court's decision in SBI vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one appeal, citing bonafide human error. It held that the trust's objectives were predominantly charitable, not solely religious, and modified the registration status to 'Charitable Trust'. The 80G registration issue was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction and did not refer to any specific seized material pertaining to the assessee. Additions under Section 153C cannot be made solely on the basis of a DVO's report without supporting seized documents.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal regarding labour food and welfare expenses, restricting the addition to Rs. 1 Lac. For the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal found that the payee had confirmed receipt and the payments were for laborers directly employed, thus allowing the appeal on this ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of the Section 68 addition as the assessee proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders and the source of funds. For the assessee's appeal, it was partly allowed; the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the actual exempt income of Rs. 3.50 Lacs, emphasizing that prior year's acceptance does not preclude challenging the issue.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish that the payments were excessive or unreasonable by not comparing them with market rates. The payee confirmed the transaction, and the assessee discharged its onus by providing supporting invoices and transaction confirmation. The ad-hoc disallowance was restricted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal is not maintainable in terms of the latest CBDT circular on low tax effect. The revenue's appeal is liable to be dismissed as non-maintainable, with liberty to seek revival if the tax effect is found to be higher or if the case falls under an exception.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had considered the assessee's explanation and accepted one of the plausible views based on facts. The revisionary order was deemed an attempt to broaden the scope of inquiry beyond the AO's original assessment and was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the transactions appeared to be a running account with the director, with funds provided for business exigency and not strictly loans or deposits. The penalties levied under Section 271D and 271E were not sustained.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT could not invoke revisionary powers u/s 263 when the matters were already pending before the CIT(A). The powers of CIT(A) are co-extensive with the AO, and any errors could be addressed there. Therefore, the revisionary order was quashed.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of the Section 68 addition as the assessee proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders and the source of funds. For the assessee's appeal, it was partly allowed; the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the actual exempt income of Rs. 3.50 Lacs, emphasizing that prior year's acceptance does not preclude challenging the issue.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 265.71 Lacs could not be disallowed again as it would amount to double addition, as the assessee had reversed the provision in the current year. Regarding the second issue, it found no grievance for the Revenue as the CIT(A) had directed verification.

The Tribunal admitted affidavits from the sellers as crucial evidence. It found that while the CIT(A) offered opportunities, the peculiar circumstances surrounding the cash payment to agriculturists warranted admitting the evidence. The impugned order was set aside, restoring the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 228 days in filing ITA No. 475/CHD/2023, accepting the assessee's explanation of a clerical mistake as a bonafide human error, citing Supreme Court precedents that advocate for a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to ensure substantial justice. Regarding the classification of the trust, the Tribunal examined the Trust Deed and found that while a segment of the objectives could be attributed to religious activities, the majority of the objectives were charitable in nature. Therefore, the Tribunal modified the order of the CIT (E) dated 27.09.2022, replacing the classification 'Religious Trust' with 'Charitable Trust'. Consequently, for ITA No. 719/CHD/2022, where registration under Section 80G was denied because the trust was classified as religious, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT (E) and restored the issue to the file of the CIT (E) for fresh examination, as the objection regarding its religious nature would no longer be valid. The Tribunal stated that any failure by the assessee to apply its income on charitable objectives could be examined by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal, while noting the rejection due to non-compliance with furnishing details, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment. This was done to uphold the principles of natural justice and provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and present their case.

The Tribunal, while noting the rejection due to non-compliance with furnishing details, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal admitted affidavits from the sellers as crucial evidence. It found that while the CIT(A) offered opportunities, the peculiar circumstances surrounding the cash payment to agriculturists warranted admitting the evidence. The impugned order was set aside, restoring the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the transactions appeared to be a running account with the director, with funds provided for business exigency and not strictly loans or deposits. The penalties levied under Section 271D and 271E were not sustained.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction and did not refer to any specific seized material pertaining to the assessee. Additions under Section 153C cannot be made solely on the basis of a DVO's report without supporting seized documents.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal regarding labour food and welfare expenses, restricting the addition to Rs. 1 Lac. For the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal found that the payee had confirmed receipt and the payments were for laborers directly employed, thus allowing the appeal on this ground.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging adverse medical conditions of the assessee. Considering the assessee is an agriculturist with exempt agricultural income, and acknowledging the difficulty in maintaining detailed documentation for cash sources, the Tribunal found that a lump sum addition of Rs. 5 Lacs would meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal held that if the deductees had paid taxes as evidenced by Form 26A, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should not be made, especially considering the retrospective nature of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). The matter was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the assessee's age and lack of technical knowledge. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for a fresh adjudication after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The AO was also directed to consider the cost of acquisition and indexation for computing capital gains.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the assessee's age and lack of technical knowledge. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for a fresh adjudication after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The AO was also directed to consider the cost of acquisition and indexation for computing capital gains.